RICHARD I. HENRY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Richard Henry appeals a trial court's denial of his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, raising three claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and an involuntary plea. The appellate court affirmed dismissal of two claims but reversed and remanded on the third claim regarding alleged alteration of the written plea agreement, finding the lower court's attachments did not conclusively refute that allegation.
The court affirmed dismissal of the first two claims but reversed and remanded the third claim. The first claim was refuted by the sentencing transcript showing counsel reviewed the presentence report. The second claim failed because Henry was bound by his sworn testimony at the plea colloquy denying any promises. The third claim was not conclusively refuted by the record attachments and required either additional evidence or an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A defendant is bound by statements made under oath during a plea colloquy and cannot later invalidate a plea by claiming the plea was involuntary based on allegedly perju…
[2] A postconviction relief claim is not conclusively refuted by attachments to the order denying the motion if the attachments do not disprove the claim.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Defendants are bound by the statements made by them under oath; they are not entitled to have them plea set aside by later claiming the plea was involuntary based on their allegedly perjured testimony.”
Establishes that defendants cannot escape pleas by claiming they perjured themselves at the plea colloquy.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHenry filed a postconviction motion raising three grounds: (1) ineffective assistance for failing to review the presentence investigation report befor…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Presentence Investigation Report cases and more on FLexlaw
PALMER, J.
Richard Henry (defendant) appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to rule 3.850.1 Concluding that one of the defendant’s claims is not conclusively refuted by the attachments to the order denying the motion, we reverse.
The defendant filed a motion for post-conviction relief in which he presented three grounds for relief: 1) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the trial court’s imposition of a sentence without having reviewed the presentence investigation report; 2) an involuntary plea; and, 3) ineffective assistance of counsel for allowing the written plea agreement to have been altered by the prosecutor after the defendant had signed it.
As to the first ground, the transcript of the sentencing hearing refutes the defendant’s allegation in that it shows that defense counsel indicated he had a chance to review the presentence investigation report, did not need additional time to do so, and that he had determined there were no inaccuracies in it.
As to the second ground, the defendant contends that his plea was not made voluntarily because defense counsel promised him that he would receive a sentence of no more than 72 months’ imprisonment. The plea colloquy shows to the contrary, in that the defendant denied under oath that any such promises had been made to him. The defendant now contends that his answer at the plea colloquy was false, but made by him because defense counsel told him to respond in the negative at his plea hearing if asked about any promises so as not to jeopardize the plea. This motion presents the all too common occurrence where defendants, in an attempt to invalidate their pleas, contend they committed perjury when they sought to have their pleas accepted. Defendants are bound by the statements made by them under oath; they are not entitled to have them plea set aside by later claiming the plea was involuntary based on their allegedly perjured testimony.
As to the third ground, the State commendably concedes that the documents attached to the trial judge’s order do not conclusively refute the defendant’s claim that portions of the written plea agreement were altered by the prosecutor after the defendant had signed it. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s order and remand this matter to the trial court on this ground, either for attachment of portions of the record which conclusively refute the defendant’s allegation that his written plea agreement was altered after he signed it, or to hold an evidentiary hearing on the matter. AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.
GRIFFIN and MONACO, JJ., concur. . See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Iacono v. State, 930 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…uth, then the defendant must speak up and immediately inform the court. We cannot condone perjury and squander judicial resources by requiring evidentiary hearings on all claims ■ of this kind.1 As the fifth district recently held in Henry v. State, 920 So. 2d 1245, 1246 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006): This motion presents the all too common occurrence where defendants, in an attempt to invalidate their pleas, contend they committed perjury when they sought to have their pleas accepted. Defendants are bound by the state…
-
Wilber Rodriguez v. State, 223 So. 3d 1095 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…der subsequently entered by the trial court. The record, which includes the plea colloquy, clearly refutes these claims, and under Florida law, a defendant is bound by the statements he makes under oath during a plea colloquy. See. Henry v. State, 920 So. 2d 1245, 1246 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (“This motion presents the all too common occurrence where defendants, in an attempt to invalidate their pleas, contend they committed perjury when they sought to have their pleas accepted. Defendants are bound by the state…
-
Avery Corbitt v. State, 220 So. 3d 446 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…rts have consistently held that when defendants seek to set aside their pleas, they are bound by those admissions. See Wagner v. State, 177 So. 3d 695, 697 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015); Conner v. State, 97 So. 3d 976, 976 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012); Henry v. State, 920 So. 2d 1245, 1246 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Thompson v. State, 50 So. 3d 1208, 1211 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). Once the trial court made its ruling and findings on the record, it then proceeded with the sentencing hearing. Corbitt’s attorney argued in mitigation that, al…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence